Posts: 6,764
Threads: 131
Joined: Mar 2004
(August 18th, 2016, 08:36)BRickAstley Wrote: Maybe we could/should start with an "Epic #0" game?
I like this idea. Much as I try to stay off the hype trains, the ground floor of Civ 6's is actually looking tempting.
Posts: 4,443
Threads: 45
Joined: Nov 2009
You might as well get on the hype train and have some fun, if we are still stuck on Civ4 in 5 years then I don't even...
In Soviet Russia, Civilization Micros You!
"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
(August 17th, 2016, 17:59)yuris125 Wrote: If I buy the game on release (seems likely at the moment), I will certainly play, be it SG or adventure or both ![smile smile](https://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/images/smilies/smile2.gif)
Ditto.
Posts: 6,165
Threads: 37
Joined: Jul 2010
I won't be buying the game until after I've seen some feedback from players whose opinions I have at least some respect for. And probably at least two patches. I'm done paying for incomplete and/or buggy games.
That being said, a SG or adventure/Epic a few months after release would be fun to play or lurk.
fnord
Posts: 7,766
Threads: 94
Joined: Oct 2009
I'm probably in for a succession game shortly after release.
Posts: 804
Threads: 46
Joined: Mar 2004
All depends if I buy the game. I loved 1 to 4, but 5 left a very bad taste. I am gun shy to buy anymore in the series.
Posts: 4,272
Threads: 38
Joined: Jun 2011
(August 18th, 2016, 09:25)T-hawk Wrote: (August 18th, 2016, 08:36)BRickAstley Wrote: Maybe we could/should start with an "Epic #0" game?
I like this idea. Much as I try to stay off the hype trains, the ground floor of Civ 6's is actually looking tempting.
Count me in.
Posts: 1,882
Threads: 126
Joined: Mar 2004
Epic Zero.
However, this could leave you in the awkward position of needing Epics Zero-A, -B, and -C.
You could go with an all new tournament type called the Zero Game: games with no competition factor, no scoring, and not even any scenario rules. Just a save with a report thread and a closing date. Low pressure events can't cover all the community's needs, but it might fill an unfilled need and raise participation levels, even lure out some lurkers who end up graduating to more competitive events.
Just a thought. ![shades shades](https://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/images/smilies/shades.gif) (I have a good one at least once per decade!)
- Sirian
Fortune favors the bold.
Posts: 696
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2016
Why would you need to separate out the Epic? I thought the point of the Epic was a common start that everyone plays and reports.
August 19th, 2016, 09:28
(This post was last modified: August 19th, 2016, 09:29 by BRickAstley.)
Posts: 7,916
Threads: 158
Joined: Jan 2012
Well here's the distinction given to Epics and Adventures on the old Civ webpage:
Quote:Our new casual tournament, the RBCiv Adventures, will bring you games on Normal and Quick speeds, including events held on lower difficulty levels to enable a wider level of participation, to ensure that newer players are not excluded from our schedule. Our premiere tournament, the Epics, will begin anew with games played only on Epic speed, and will cater to the needs of our veterans.
If we kept with that an Adventure would be the right term, though those seem to have been more handcrafted than I'm proposing. But it would just be a first play of the game event, so we could get away with it. Adventure #0?
EDIT: And this is all nomenclature quibbling anyway so as long as we have a game and do consistent naming into the future it won't ruin everything.
|